- Russia looks to have moved thousands of troops from the front lines in Ukraine to defend Kursk.
- One of Ukraine’s likely goals with the Kursk incursion was to force Russia to thin out its troops.
- But these represent only a small proportion of the forces Russia is deploying to defend the area.
I’m no military guy, but as far as I understand it using troops trained in combined arms maneuver warfare to hold a trench line is a bit of a misuse of their skillset. Kinda like using an entire delivery van to transport your weekly shopping.
Why not use the troops in an environment they can truly excel and force a disproportionate response?
Also, it isn’t exactly true that these troops were pulled off the eastern front. More accurate to say they weren’t deployed there, so there’s an opportunity cost.
But the article says they thinned out the front line for this operation, whatever that means.
I feel like there is a well-earned reaction to the lemmygrad and hexbear folks that makes any opinion questioning Ukraine get obliterated, and on balance that’s probably fine, but I want Ukraine to win. I am just a little confused about why they did this. Russia has hundreds of thousands of troops in Ukraine. Sending a couple thousand Ukrainian troops into Russia feels like desperation, not strategy
I would think that Ukrainian military senior staff know a bit more of what they’re doing than us armchair generals. In terms of the full explanation, I’m sure we’ll get that much later down the line (likely after the war). In terms of the desperation, I guess a bit of that has to be involved. They wouldn’t need to do this if they were winning easily in the east, but that’s where basically all the Russian military is alongside extensive fortifications, minefields, pre-sited artillery, etc.
It’s likely also got a political angle to it too. Undermining the myth of the strong Czar protecting his people, and forcing tough decisions about how to use conscripts, some of which are from wealthy and influential cities (unlike the contract soldiers).
You are correct that they thinned out their line. They must think that’s an acceptable risk. Even top military advisors aren’t sure what the goals of the assault are (they have good guesses), so assuming we know if it’s worth it or not is really dumb.
The best reason I’ve seen I think is that Russia has to retake this land, no matter the cost. If Ukraine can come in and hold ground that’s a huge PR loss for Russia, who tells their citizens it can’t happen and they’re so strong. We’re coming up to winter. Historically, Ukraine does much better in defence, but also Russia stops assaulting during the winter. Holding this land in Russia creates a point that Russia has to attack, even in the winter.
There are also many other reasons, such as they’re working on a very large logistics cutoff by destroying some bridges that are now the only way for Russia to access after the push. Any way they can put more strain on Russia’s supply line is huge. Their soldiers were already seemingly not super well supplied. It also creates situations where Russia is redeploying to counter this push and Ukraine can use its extremely accurate HIMARS to get a lot of kills while they’re grouped up in trucks.
Basically, there are a lot of potential advantages, and the cost seems to have been minimal, mostly opporutiny cost. We can only trust their military leaders aren’t idiots, which they don’t seem to be. Making assumptions on our own, or even listening to military experts, is not going to be accurate. Everyone is making guesses at best.